Tag Archives: public

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.

Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

388962

Show your face for a GM Free UK Updated for 2026

I believe in people power.

It’s a belief that rarely lets me down. An informed and motivated populace is one of our best defences defence against corporate lies, political corruption and media laziness.

And frankly doing things together is more effective and fun than trying to change the world all on your own!

I’ve seen people power work in my own career. My Behind the Label series for The Ecologist is a good example. Armed with the facts about all the toxic ingredients that get put into everyday products such as food and cosmetics, it gave consumers the confidence to make better choices.

It often provoked an indignant response from companies. But over the years, as the momentum grew and public calls for safer products got louder, many manufacturers began to take some of the worst chemicals out of their products.

And now, people power is just what we need

In the UK we need people power again if we are going to stop the juggernaut of GMOs.

The US experience is showing what people power can do in this regard. People who never really thought of themselves as ‘activists’ has been motivated to take a stand over issues like GM labelling.

Local groups have been formed, money raised, PR organised and a big noise made – often from somebody’s back room or kitchen table – on behalf of a better food future for all. When Vermont became the first US state to vote mandatory labelling of GMO products into law that was people power in action.

But in the UK public engagement with GMOs has slipped somewhat due, I believe, to a very effective PR campaigning by biotech companies to make people feel they are too stupid to join in a discussion that is best left to scientists.

As a result GM campaigning in the UK has become a scientific and academic ‘battle of the papers’ with each side claiming that the 250 references in their paper are better than the 250 references in the other side’s paper. It’s not exactly the stuff that fuels headline news.

Worse many of the pro-GM scientists aren’t scientists at all but simply corporate lobbyists who plot with politicians behind closed doors. They’re hired guns whose job is to shoot first and not ask any questions. Ever.

We need good scientific discourse. We need good scientists on our side to show up show the multiple holes in the pro-GM argument. But GM is not just a scientific issue and scientists by their very nature are not activists and academic papers are not campaigns.

Raising the volume

What we need is a Big Noise. We need public engagement and it can’t come soon enough.

GMOs have been with us for nearly 20 years. In the early 90s a very visible public and media campaign helped keep them out of our fields and off our plates.

Because of the way that the public discussion has petered out in the UK and in many parts of the EU, people could be forgiven for believing that we are ‘safe’ from GMOs. But the issue has never gone away.

In reality the GM debate has, for some time, been at a stand-off, with consumers and NGOs largely refusing to accept GM and corporations, politicians and regulators trying to push it into farming and food.

This stand-off has allowed the issue to slip beneath the public radar, leaving many unaware of the latest developments or how these might affect them.

But things are changing rapidly. The biggest change is that the EU coalition that has blocked planting of GM crops has broken up. It is likely that before the end of 2014 the European Parliament will allow Member States to make their own decisions on the planting of GM crops.

This may sound like a good idea, but it creates more problems than it solves. GMOs don’t respect geographical borders and yet there is no solid provision for what might happen if GM crops in one country cross-pollinate with those in another.

Likewise, guidelines for opting out are very narrow and even require Member States to seek the consent of biotech companies before opting out. For these and other reasons, oversight at EU level is considered crucial to maintain tight control over the planting of GM crops.

If this proposed change in legislation goes ahead, the UK will likely push ahead with planting without any post-marketing monitoring or co-existence measures (necessary to protect organic and non-GMO farmers) in place.

Declare yourself GM Free Me

Now is the time to speak out. Let’s not wait for the horror headlines to appear before we get ourselves organised.

The GM Free Me initiative is one way you can begin. It’s a visual petition. Not just another selfish selfie, the campaign ask is simple.

Upload a photo of yourself holding the printable GM Free Me card, or if your are so inclined the e-card for tablets and ipads, and join this lively ‘national portrait gallery’ of real people of all ages and backgrounds who are tired of politicians, regulators, pro-industry researchers and media pushing genetic engineering technology into our farming and food system and ignoring the concerns and opposition of average people.

Once your photo is uploaded it goes onto a map of the UK divided into political constituencies. The more of us in each area, the more power we have and the more pressure we can all bring to bear locally and nationally.

So why not get your family, friends and colleagues involved too. Then share it on social media (and send it to your MP – there’s a button for that onsite!) and encourage others to join in so we can really make a noise.

Does it take longer than posting yet another angry tweet about GM? Yes. But not much longer.

And by adding your face to the gallery you are showing that people power is alive and well and determined to stop the UK becoming a GM nation.

Pat Thomas is an author and campaigner, a former Editor of the Ecologist and Director of the Beyond GM / GM Free Me campaign.

384883

Housing against nightingales – no way! Updated for 2026

Bad news I am afraid. The RSPB has been campaigning to stop a development of 5,000 houses on Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI.

This ex-MOD training ground is home to a nationally important population of nightingales – possibly the most important site in the UK for this iconic and declining species – as well as ancient woodland and rare grassland.

Last Friday, Medway Council made the decision to approve the application from Land Securities, MoD’s delivery partner.

The vote to approve the development goes against the advice of Natural England, the government’s own environmental advisors, as well as a raft of conservation organisations.

A shocking decision

If the development goes ahead it would destroy the SSSI including the home to more than 1% of our national nightingale population.

Worse – it would set the terrible precedent for future development. Under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (Clause 118), there is a presumption against building on SSSIs – our most important wildlife sites.

The public benefits from the development need to significantly outweigh the environmental damage. Houses which are important locally must not trump nationally important wildlife sites.

The Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, can ‘call in’ the application and make the decision himself with the national perspective it needs. In effect this would take the decision out of Medway’s hands, and allow it to be made through the rigorous process of a public inquiry.

We’ll be reminding him that if the development goes ahead, it will be one of the largest losses of SSSI land in the country – perhaps the biggest loss since the mid-1990s. This is not what we’d expect from ‘the greenest government ever’. Not only that, but it would be contrary to the Government’s own guidance on developing protected sites.

It is clear that Medway is in need of housing and employment, but these needs should be assessed through a thorough strategic review. Reliance on a single proposal at Lodge Hill is not the answer to providing a sustainable long-term solution.

The more I think about it, the angrier I get

Now, if Mr Pickles fails to call in the decision and fails to grant a public inquiry, then this would send a terrible signal to others looking to meet housing targets.

The Labour Party, for example, have said that by 2020 we should be building 200,000 new houses a year. If every block of 5,000 new houses happened to coincide with a SSSI, we could lose 40 SSSIs a year.

I know what you’re thinking – this is hyperbole, this cannot happen as not all new houses will be built on SSSIs. But, if the Lodge Hill development goes ahead then developers might just chance their arm and the consequences could be appalling for wildlife.

And, given that this is public land (Ministry of Defence), what happens to future public land of high environmental value? Can that also be sold off for development? I expect higher standards from the State.

And the Lodge Hill decision struck a discordant note after such a positive week. On Tuesday, we had been celebrating with Medway Council over the decision by The Davies Commission to rule out a Thames Estuary Airport.

And, on Wednesday, it had been a pleasure to hear positive commitments to restore nature from so many businesses, politicians and religious leaders at our Conference for Nature.

The original intention of the Today programme (which covered the Lodge Hill story on Saturday morning – see here at 7.32) had been to reflect on the juxtaposition of these events.

‘Back to the future’ on nature conservation?

But as I thought about possible responses, I felt the Lodge Hill decision was another reminder that the war continues. Fifteen years ago, we coined the phrase ‘stop the rot, protect the best and restore the rest’.

The optimists amongst us hoped that we would be spending more of our efforts recovering populations of threatened species and restoring wildlife at a landscape scale. We have done some of this (and need / want to do lots more) but the reality is we still have to fight hard to prevent even our finest wildlife sites from deteriation or destruction.

The verbal commitments made on Wednesday will ring hollow unless they are backed up by action. Our regional director in the south-east, Chris Corrigan, rightly said to me at the weekend:

“There is a housing need but if we are going to solve this by building on the 6% of our most precious land for wildlife we cannot possibly reverse the continuing erosion of nature and what kind of country we will leave for future generations.”

I am hopeful that the Labour Party will address the false conflict of housing and the environment through its Lyons review, to which the RSPB’s Head of Planning is contributing. Simon has some smart ideas which he is feeding in.

I’m also hopeful that Mark Reckless, the local Conservative MP who opposes the Lodge Hill development, will help persuade his colleague Eric Pickles to call Medway’s decision.

Time for a Nature Act – and you know who to vote for …

Decisions like Medway’s send us back to the mid-1990s when the environment movement climbed into the trees to oppose the expanding road network. We may have to do so again, but in 21st century England we deserve a different agenda.

This is why I am pleased we now have two political parties – the Liberal Democrats and, after their conference this weekend, the Green Party – promising a Nature Act after the next election. We should be investing our energies in restoring nature, rather than destroying it.

The good news is, as I found out at the ‘Vision for Nature’ conference on Friday, the next generation of environmentalists are more passionate, more determined and (from what I can tell) more impressive that the current crop.

They’ll need to be. We’re leaving our natural world in a mess and, if we carry on as we are, it will be for them to clean it up.

Martin Harper is Conservation Director of RSPB. He blogs on the RSPB website.

Please help us: tell Eric Pickles why this decision matters, and ask him to call it in.

Catch up with the whole history of the case on our Lodge Hill web pages.

This article is based on two blog posts by Martin Harper on the RSPB website.

383842

Market Leader